Neoconservative David Brooks admits he saw Iraq war as necessary for ‘peace process’

David Brooks admitted everything yesterday. Monstrous column. Who will call him on these belligerent attitudes? He said that the peace process is in essence the pacification of Arab countries. And so it required the invasion of Iraq and, prospectively, getting rid of Qaddafi, Assad, and Hamas. Not a word about the occupation, not a word about 25-to-1 ratio of water used, Jews to Palestinians in the West Bank. This is the neoconservative mind: the only issue is Israel’s dominance in the region, and our support for it. Be thankful to Brooks for admitting it.

In fact, the current peace process is doomed because of the inability to make a categorical distinction. There are some countries in the region that are not nice, but they are normal – Egypt,Jordan,Saudi Arabia. But there are other governments that are fundamentally depraved. Either as a matter of thuggishness (Syria) or ideology (Hamas), they reject the full humanity of other human beings. They believe it is proper and right to kill innocents. They can never be part of a successful negotiation because they undermine the universal principles of morality.

…There won’t be peace so long as depraved regimes are part of the picture. That’s why it’s crazy to get worked into a lather about who said what about the 1967 border. As long as Hamas and the Assad regime are in place, the peace process is going nowhere, just as it’s gone nowhere for lo these many years.

That’s why it’s necessary, especially at this moment in history, to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them. To have a peaceful Middle East, it was necessary to get rid of Saddam’s depraved regime in Iraq. It will be necessary to try to get rid of Gadhafi’s depraved regime in Libya. It’s necessary, as everybody but the Obama administration publicly acknowledges, to see Assad toppled. It will be necessary to marginalize Hamas. It was necessary to abandon the engagement strategy that Barack Obama campaigned on and embrace the cautious regime-change strategy that is his current doctrine.

This is unreconstructed neoconservatism, transplanted to the Arab spring, and signalling that the Palestinians must never have self-determination, unless it’s in Jordan. Notice the “universal principles of morality” — which Brooks, who has visited Israel a dozen times and was raised as a Jew to be “gooey-eyed” about the place– fails to apply to Israel’s occupation. No, the neoconservative principle is that Arabs must be bludgeoned by a superpower into accepting the presence of Israel. As Ed Koch used to say, How’m I doing??

Note as well that Brooks says “cautious regime change” is Obama’s policy. Well Brooks is a favorite of Obama, and it’s hard to imagine him saying anything like that without a signal from the White House. So Obama is pushing for the removal of Assad and Gaddafi.

18 Responses

>> David Brooks: There won’t be peace in Mideast so long as depraved regimes exist

And “we” will decide – based on how it suits our needs and purposes – which ones are depraved (Syria, Hamas, Hamas, Syria, Hamas and Syria; Libya and Iraq; and, craftily omitted, Iran) and which ones are not (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia).

mig – i agree – try international law instead.. it seems they can’t!!!
brooks has to resort to the idea of morality something he fails miserably at in his inclination towards ‘regime’ change, or more directly war for all the wrong reasons…

all these neocon folks seem to want the world to be a certain way in an immediate sense through the use of war which means killing of innocent people… their is nothing moral about any of it…

James, and that regime change falls flat belly landing also. Its prohibited in international law & UN charter to interfere the other member or state internal matters. Matters in peace & security are different case.

This is mindless. Syria and Hamas may be thuggish, but Syria does not attack Israel (or anyone else) and Hizbollah does not attack Israel (or anyone else) but merely stands ready to resist Israeli aggression (should it arise).

Israel by contrast is unremittingly thuggish. Lebanon 1982, 2006, Gaza 2008/2009, Mavi Marmara, the siege of Gaza. Many observers observe Israeli aggressiveness to bloom especially when its neighbors (or at least the Palestinians) become more peaceable (Lebanon 1982, Gaza 2008/2009).

Where is the rationality for a hope or belief that Israel would make a peace offer acceptable to the Palestinians if ALL Israeli “enemies” (including its victims) became demonstrably powerless? Can anyone imagine Israel voluntarily choosing to remove all or most settlers in such a case?

So Saudi Arabia is “normal.” And HAMAS is ideologically depraved. Interesting he did not mention Iran in any catagory of his characterizations.
Is Iran neither normal or depraved? Neither ideologically sick or thuggish?
Why then all the endless U-instigated economic sanctions choking it?

Same way as they sold Iraq & WDM’s. Back to Iran and nookular case a little. US and few others ( US in front ), demanded that Iran must put in force NPT additional protocol. While US government ratified same add. protocol in 2009. Nice…

David Brooks admitted everything yesterday. Monstrous column…. This is the neoconservative mind: the only issue is Israel’s dominance in the region, and our support for it. Be thankful to Brooks for admitting it.

Indeed. Be thankful that Brooks has revealed himself so blatantly. As I recall, Brooks – before he came to the Times to replace William Safire – was working at The Weekly Standard, the neocon flagship. He has always been a neocon, even in his earlier days at Buckley’s National Review. In the last few years at the Times and in broadcast appearances at PBS/NPR, he has tried to pass himself off as a reasonable conservative but it just doesn’t work.

This is exactly what is needed: For the the Zionists in the mainstream media to expose themselves and their hubris fully to the American public. Let Brooks and his kind reveal their contempt for Arabs and the Arab Spring. Let them show us all how thoroughly Zionists exert overwhelming influence over American mainstream media. This is how the war against Zionism ultimately will be won – by using their own stupidity against them.

Zionism presumes that the national or historical rights of Jews are superior to the human rights of the native population.

To achieve Jewish national revival Zionism assumes that Jews have the right to plunder and to kill non-Jews with impunity.

Zionists operate as much today on the above principles as they did in the 1880s.

Thus Zionism has a remarkable record of racism and of depravity, and Brooks is simply unable to hold up a mirror to see the mole on his own face.

In addition, Brooks is incapable of good newspaper writing. Back in the 70s when I worked as a journalist, he would have been fired for pompous verbosity.

Consider this text.

There are some countries in the region that are not nice, but they are normal – Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. But there are other governments that are fundamentally depraved. Either as a matter of thuggishness (Syria) or ideology (Hamas), they reject the full humanity of other human beings. They believe it is proper and right to kill innocents. They can never be part of a successful negotiation because they undermine the universal principles of morality.

I cut out the excess verbiage below.

… some countries in the region … are not nice but … are normal – Egypt, Jordan, [Saudia]. … other governments … are … depraved. Either [out] of thuggishness (Syria) or ideology (Hamas), they [deny] full humanity [to] other human beings. They believe it … right to kill innocents. They [thwart] successful negotiation because they undermine … morality.

If the Times management had any ethics or commitment to quality journalism, it would dismiss Brooks summarily both for moral turpitude and also for incompetence.

This is just another bunch of B.S. from the Zionism-addled. Because one would be hard pressed to understand what Lybia has to do with Israeli Jew coveting and stealling Palestinian land an resources, and, if Hamas was such a big barrier to peace, why the Israelis were instrumental in its creation/existence.

But of course, the problem has to be something, anything other than the Israelis and their supporters throughout the world.

Mondoweiss in Your Inbox

Get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox every morning and stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in the Middle East!

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.